Charities representing the Armed Forces have raised concerns over the treatment of some service personnel when they retire or return from active service overseas.

The Armed Forces Bill had previously only proposed introducing an annual report on how the covenant was being honoured.

The military covenant only officially applies to the Army, but its core principles are taken to extend to the air force and navy.

It states soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - and that they and their families should expect fair treatment and to be valued, respected and properly rewarded.

Analysis

David Cameron wants to live up to his pledge to enshrine the military convenant in law.

The problem the government is facing is how far to go when it comes to the law.

If the Armed Forces Bill is passed into law it would give MPs the opportunity to review the covenant annually, but it doesn't detail or codify the covenant itself.

The Defence Minister Andrew Robathan has come out with this intriging phrase "statutory basis".

The covenant itself could be acknowledged and recognised in law. But it's unclear if there will be details.

The Ministry of Defence and Downing Street are trying to find a way of recognising the covenant in law.

But not detail it in such a way that it would lead to legal challenges from soldiers, airmen or sailors who feel they haven't been given what they were promised.

In practical terms, it means they should be able to be entitled to adequate housing and health care.

General Lord Richard Dannatt , a former Chief of the General Staff - the highest position in the Army - warned that the government had to guard against simply putting the covenant into law and then thinking the job had been done.

He added: "The really important thing is that the things are provided, good accommodation, fair levels of pay, fair medical support for our troops and good equipment."

'Broad principles'

In opposition, Prime Minister David Cameron set up a review and expressed a wish to set out commitments on matters including compensation, education for military children and care for troops injured on the battlefield.

But when the government published the Armed Forces Bill, which is now going through Parliament, it just required the defence secretary to issue a report on the state of the covenant.

In response, the Royal British Legion, which had been campaigning for several years for the covenant to become law, said it was "pretty depressing" and MPs calling for changes expressed disappointment.

The passage of the bill had been delayed, with Tory backbench MP Philip Hollobone tabling an amendment for formal recognition of the covenant.

While Mr Cameron is expected to announce on Monday that the covenant is to be put on a statutory basis for the first time, it is also predicted that he will extend it to include all members of the armed forces.

It is thought the legislation will set out some broad principles rather than pledges on specific entitlements.

It is expected to say that no member of the armed forces should be disadvantaged because of their service and that in some cases, service personnel should be given special treatment.

BBC political correspondent Ben Geoghagen said it was not known whether the legislation would enable members of the armed forces to challenge the government in the courts if they felt the covenant was not being upheld.

Former military commander, Col Richard Kemp, said putting the covenant on a legal footing would "be a huge morale boost for our troops", but that it also had to include hard commitments.

Mr Robathan told the Daily Telegraph that the legal change would "ensure the best possible treatment for all our service personnel, both serving and retired".

Labour's shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said the prime minister "appears to have finally done the right thing".

"I hope this marks the beginnings of a real reassessment of how the government is treating our armed forces," he added.

Comments

Comment number 251.

steve 15th May 2011 - 9:11

No one would object to this applying to combat troops .

However,I would have significant reservations regarding it applying to the 80% of uniformed personnel who don't fall in this category.Also their may be understandable and justified irritation from those other emergency services who also do difficult,often dangerous and life saving jobs while the government are merrily cutting their pay!

Comment number 243.

Reading the books hidden in corners15th May 2011 - 0:47

The question should be raised - do service personnel currently suffer from discrimination? If so, then I presume current legislation is valid and sufficient to redress the issue - A legal expectation for 'fair treatment and to be sustained and rewarded' implies that those without such legal protection can expect the absence of similar consideration? are pensioners or the homeless less deserving?

Comment number 241.

Reading the books hidden in corners15th May 2011 - 0:13

Let's just think of the consequences - will the NHS be legally obliged to provide 'preferential' treatments for ex- service personnel? Will your life saving operation be cancelled because some ex-service person has ingrowing toe-nails? Will the victims of domestic violence be refused 're-housing' because an ex-service family need a house? I think the implications should cause concern!

Comment number 238.

michellegrand15th May 2011 - 0:00

I see from the posts that soldiers have found that the services interest in them stops the moment they leave. This is where we should care for the troops. Maybe give up some of the nice stuff for the senior officers, and look after those at the bottom for a change

BBC links

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.